At the end of the day, money doesn't solve problems. Work being done solves problems.
How that should affect policy... I have no idea but I can see both sides of the problem.
In a more realistic scenario: Maybe some people would quit their jobs because they gained some independence. Is that bad?
Right? I could totally be wrong here.
We justify giving money to rich people because it will make them work harder, but we fear that giving money to poor people will make them lazier.
Ultimately, they want to give money to people that need it and will put it to good use (for whose definition of good, I don't know... also, we HOPE that is the case but obviously people are biased, politicians included). Sometimes it's individuals who need money, sometimes it's businesses (which is why they did both).
I will tell you that I personally did not need any of the individual stimulus money, but I got the full amount because I don't make a ton; however, there are others who need the money because they have expenses much higher than mine, e.g. they have debt of some kind.
Not trying to muddy the waters. I am trying to say it's not always clear who needs money and who doesn't.
It would be predicated on the amount wouldn't it?
Presumably 65M distributed equally among the people of the state wouldn't be enough for everyone to stop working.
One thing we can say without going into counterfactuals, the execs probably didn't work 28M harder, or produce 28M in value.
I am certainly willing to pay 30 cents more for my Big Mac so that the employee gets $15/h instead of 8
As much as we like to believe WE would go to the "more ethical place", unless the average person did then ultimately the undercutter will win. Now real life is not that black and white obviously. Costco pays a pretty decent wage allegedly but they make up for it in creative ways (like having the warehouse also be the storefront).